Straight forward question. Been trying to gauge the man’s politics and I think he leans more toward being an anti-colonial nationalist rather than an outright socialist. Still based and deserving of critical support, but maybe not the next Thomas Sankara; not that he needs to be, but it’d be cooler if he was.
Been trying to gauge the man’s politics and I think he leans more toward being an anti-colonial nationalist rather than an outright socialist.
Both can be true, in fact the national question is what has brought many historical figures to socialism. Uncle Ho for example used the pseudonym “Nguyen the patriot” when he was in france and he himself said that it was nationalism what brough him to Marxism. Same with Mao, this is mentioned on the first chapters of “Western Marxism” by Domenico Losurdo and more elaborated on his other works like Class struggle. It’s almost impossible for someone fighting for national liberation to not be a socialist or symphatetic to socialism, the russian revolution was an inspiration to every single leader fighting for liberation during its time, even Sun Yatsen was in some way inspired by it.
My personal opinion is that he is definitely socialist, it’s fairly obvious he imitates Sankara who was a marxist, how well read he is i don’t know but it doesn’t really matter, what matters is what they do and they certainly have done great progress towards the liberation of the sahel states.
Dude, I think people sometimes confuse socialism as some kind of aesthetic style, or a kind of religion where men worship Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and the great international proletarian revolution and recite the communist manifesto every morning.
Socialism does not have a strict form yet. However most of the socialism in 20th century began as anti-colonial struggles that aimed at gaining economic and political independence from the West, at the same time their industrial infrastructure was developed. So in any shape and form Burkina Faso is moving towards socialism.
I’m not asking about “aesthetics” or whatever. If he’s a socialist his policies will reflect that; if he’s not a socialist his policies will reflect that. This is what I’m asking.
Why didn’t you look for his policies yourself?
I have been, but it’s hard to find reliable English-language sources on countries that Western Hegemony is opposed to. Especially when everything you’re likely to come across first is either coming from the mouth of the Great Satan itself or through one of its sock puppets.
I have been, but it’s hard to find reliable English-language sources on countries that Western Hegemony is opposed to.
No worries. That is actually a very common issue and plenty of comrades(including myself 🙂 ) in Lemmygrad are bringing tons of information regarding Traoré and Burkina Faso due to the high interest on this topic. You could check the following sub where I constantly update regarding this beautiful country:
- c/africa (I also not only add regarding BF but also Mali and Niger)
Also, give my comment a look if you have the time! In that comment, I tried to collect as much information so that any comrade could make their decision regarding Burkina Faso -> https://lemmygrad.ml/post/8696144/6776592
I can entirely relate to that! It’s exactly where I was when I first heard of Traore!
Traore is definitely a socialist, but he’s also a nationalist, which you know…good 👍
Among the things Traore has spoken about when it comes to his people’s culture is that the French imposed their own culture on Burkina Faso (the fact of which should be evident in them speaking French); he mentioned that women in BF dress in black when mourning because that’s what the French wear, but traditionally they used to wear blue. Traore’s nationalism is about bringing his people’s culture back from the foreign thing it’s become.
There are many cases of colonized peoples losing their cultural identity and becoming a copy of their colonizers, a copy the colonizer doesn’t even consider as an equal or a desirable people. Traore wants to bring pride back to his people, he wants them to be proud of who they are and where they’re from rather than be unwelcomed French cardboard cutouts.
Yes, but being a nationalist in this way is on par with socialist principles. People’s nationalism instead of symbolic nationalism that domesticates the masses towards a bourgeois goal.
You kinda need nationalism in colonized countries due to the reasons you mentioned.
Westerners accept lesser-evilism for themselves but don’t accept it for others.
I don’t think even lesser evilism (commonly used in the context of bourgeois elections) applies here.
It was a simple question, dude. I’m not condemning him. I’m not condemning his actions. No part of my post implied I was.
He is part of a vanguard with a governing system that is a dictatorship against capital.
Marxism is a science. It shouldn’t matter what you call yourself when it is practised.
He was part of a marxist student organisation, so we at least know he identified as a marxist in the past. So the chances of him still being a marxist are high. And I believe he is. My theory is that he wants to turn Burkina Faso into a DOTP but because there’s so few marxists in Burkina Faso he hasn’t taken any steps for it.
Oh joy another westerner purity testing a anti-imperialist revolution.
I haven’t once heard him talk about culture, ethnicity or homeland. Those are the hallmarks of nationalism. I’ve heard him go on dialectical historical rants to explain things.
People in Burkina Faso call him the next Sankara and they would know.
You are right of course, but let’s not be uncharitable here. I think it’s a fair question to ask and it opens up the opportunity to learn. I always appreciate posts like this because they offer a chance to really delve into what is really important from a socialist and anti-imperialist perspective and help newer comrades understand what rhetorical traps not to fall into.
A 2 day old account who’s only post or even comment is to criticize a revolutionary government? yeah I’m going to be uncharitable.
I see what you mean. Yes, it’s good to be careful with new accounts that display suspicious behavior, but we also have to try and balance that out with still being reasonably welcoming and open to newcomers and “baby leftists”. Everyone has to start somewhere.
I thought that this post was not necessarily so much criticizing as asking a legitimate question. This “X anti-imperialist leader/government is not actually socialist, just nationalist” is a talking point that is often heard in western leftist circles, particularly those of the ultra-left variety. And it’s to be expected that some of the newer comrades who come here have heard these sorts of criticisms, they don’t quite know what to make of them, and are really looking to understand if these criticisms are legitimate and how to respond to them.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, for me the most important thing is that a person is coming into this space with humility and genuine intention to learn rather than preach. Then i am much more inclined to be forgiving toward misconceptions and a lack of knowledge.
Maybe i’m being too charitable, maybe i’m wrong and this person is not engaging in good faith. Time will tell. For now it can’t hurt to give an honest response.
Keep up the good work. I don’t think shutting people up is a good thing, and even reinforces a common trope of authoritarian communists who can’t engage against criticism, especially from people coming from other circles (liberals, demsocs). I think we should only curb this kind of behavior if we see a lot of activity of the same kind of questions and comments, in a way that undermines the main purpose of this community.
I’m not “purity testing”; it was an honest question because I couldn’t pin where he was at politically.
There is an important distinction between Left-wing Nationalism (which is progressive & anti-colonial) and Right-wing Nationalism (which is reactionary & chauvinistic). The two are distinct practices which use differing language and have differing goals. Left-wing Nationalists don’t talk about culture, ethnicity, or homeland - they talk about anti-imperialism & anti-colonialism. They are often socialists but this isn’t always the case and even if they aren’t socialists outright they still deserve critical support in their struggles against imperialism/colonialism.
I’m not looking for a reason to condemn Traoré nor a reason to support him. I already know his cause is righteous and deserves support, I just wanted to know how far along the Left path he was. There’s no need for snark, comrade.
If you are trying to gauge Traoré for his politics, then these three articles might help:
-
Summary of economic and developmental policies -> https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7857412 and (additions to the previous article) https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7559888
-
Ideological and educational initiatives -> https://africanvoiceonline.co.uk/a-monumental-tribute-ibrahim-traores-initiative-to-honor-thomas-sankara-and-redefine-african-heritage/
-
Comparison with Thomas Sankara -> https://weafrique.com/similarities-captain-ibrahim-traore-thomas-sankara/
Also, a brief reminder that “Democracy is not where you begin—it’s what comes after revolution.” as mentioned by Traoré
Thank you very much!
-
Yes
“You will know them by their fruits.”
“It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.”
I care more about the concrete results he is able to deliver than his stated ideology. There are many socialists and communists who have not achieved a fraction of what he has already achieved. So i say let’s wait and see.
People also grow over time. If he is really serious about breaking the neocolonial grip and uplifting his people he will inevitably come to Marxism-Leninism or something akin to it sooner or later.
The correctness of Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution and liberation was borne out of practice. If all Marxist-Leninist works disappeared tomorrow it would eventually but inevitably be recreated through trial and error, even if under a different name.
Already many of the anti-colonial nationalist leaders have, knowingly or unknowingly, converged on many of the same recognitions and strategies that communists have long since known and spoken of.
The advantage of studying Marxism-Leninism is that you can make the process of arriving at those conclusions much shorter and less painful. In that sense i certainly hope that he has been exposed to or has people around him who can lead him to the theory.
But in the long term the arc of history bends toward liberation, which exerts its own inescapable force of gravity, regardless which label you place on it. The forces of empire and reaction can only delay it for a while.
Well he seemed really into the soviet ww2 memorial day when he visited Moscow. I think he genuinely isnt opposed to socialism.
To be honest, I think a better question is, are his allies of AES, Niger and Mali, those types? (just national liberation-types or also socialist types)
And are they getting taking notes at least from Ibrahim Traore and Thomas Sankara?
Why do you think he’s bougeorsoise? He had a modest upbringing, modest education. He turned down a 76k salary and retained military wages.
I think the origin of the person isn’t what matter most, but which political position this person holds, whose interests they defend. I don’t see Traore upholding interests of the local Burkinabe bourgeoisie. I don’t even know if the local bourgeoisie isn’t the common comprador type found commonly in third world countries, who are usually able of selling their own country (and their own mothers) in order to keep profits and good standings with the Western overlords.
From what I have read so far he seems to get something done and people seem to live okay. Need to read more though.
deleted by creator
What’s wrong with being pan-Africanist? If anything that makes him an internationalist rather than a nationalist.
Did I say it’s wrong? I said that he should be supported?
Among the things Traore has spoken of is that France funds its country quite well, but in its colonies, or exploited neo-colonies, they aren’t building roads, power plants, etc. He’s cut the salaries of politicians and is building up his country’s infrastructure with the wealth of selling nationalized natural resources at fair market value (instead of at a fraction, which it used to be sold at). That is socialism he’s talking about and practicing.
deleted by creator
In theory, There’s no explicit Marxist-Leninist party, proletarian dictatorship, or worker-state model as in orthodox socialism. The government is a military junta, not a popular workers’ republic.
Regarding the worker-state model or proletarian dictatorship, this has been answered by Traoré:
“Democracy is not where you begin—it’s what comes after revolution.” .
You can have democracy(which is the result of DOTP and not to be confused with liberal democracy) after the revolution has finished. Burkina Faso hasn’t reached that stage because they are currently in war with imperialist sponsored terrorists that are ravaging the country and also they haven’t finished stabilizing the country’s conditions. In other words, there is still so much work to be done.
However, this doesn’t mean that they are not working towards this. If you investigate how their grassroots organization and local governance work, they are actually moving towards achieving that and they are receiving plenty of governance experience exchanges from China:
Thanks for the de program effort comrade I’ll be researching or maybe translating some articles to get public support for their efforts.
He’s a African bourgeoisie revolutionary
Do you have evidence that he’s from the bourgeoisie class?
deleted by creator
As military officer you could say he was a (disloyal) servant of the bourgeois state, but to say he was bourgeois just by being a military officer is stretching the definition. Saying he held “power and relative privilege” is a reach. He didn’t own capital; he made money selling his labour to the state: he wasn’t and isn’t bourgeoisie.
Is he a representative of the bourgeoisie? Does he support (or is supported by) national bankers, landowners, industrialists? What is his political power base?
deleted by creator
Why are you telling he is petit bourgeois or has a petit bourgeois power base? Which information do you have to prove your claim?
I agree, though I’m not sure I’d use the term ‘bourgeois’ to describe him or his revolution as I don’t think either work as appropriate or accurate descriptions.
deleted by creator
That’s not what petty bourgeoisie means.
